Armstrong's numbers

[Dr. Maserati]

Fair enough. For the record, I think LA gets alot more grief than he deserves. I think the playing field was/is even. I think alot of posters live to dislike the guy and it's pathetic. Nothing more than that.

I did not make a broad assumption. Somebody posted that somewhere else about the giro, and I find it laughable. Nothing more than that.

This is what you wrote earlier - and I took it as meaning all of us.
But I think you have clarified that it was not your intention - so no problem there.

BTW back to the topic, if y'all think LA is doing something other than anybody else you are on crack. Also, he is 38 off of 3 years retirement. Regardless of what you think come out of your pity houses and show some respect to that at least. This place is like a less moderated DPF....same misery in LA's achievements being passed amongst the denizens lol.

You are quite correct that LA gets way too much attention.

Actually this point was raised on numerous threads and in one I clearly stated my belief that Menchov and Contador doped. I said at the time that no-one would jump on to the thread and say what BPC has just wrote about LA in an above post.

One poster did try to defend Contador - but even then it was that we should exercise caution in relation to him without a positive test. Which is why those threads die quickly.

LA has a polarising effect - every time he is mentioned it gives rise to debate.

 

[UnBanProCycling]

You are clearly ignoring all the threads questioning Contadors sudden power increase and ablity as a TT rider. His climbing at Verbier, The bags of blood in Fuentes fridge with AC on it. The slip of paper in Fuentes wallet with AC written on it....along with Contador's phone number.

I started the major thread discussing AC's VO2 max because I was surprised there was such little comment on it. Considering he won the tour de france and broke all power output records its extraordinary there is such little comment compared to Armstrong.

To pretend there isn't is nothing more then an attempt to bait others in another useless discussion.

Why is it baiting to make a comment which Chris also makes and I have made before? It's clearly my judgment and I think its a correct judgment.

 

[Race Radio]

Please provide links to the Cofidis deal, and to where he didn't share the Thrift with teamates. Not that I don't believe you, but I like a little more than gossip on a forum. I am sure these economic issues are documented somewhere. Thanks.

How did he do so well in the Vuelta? Even assuming all of the above you think he had more in the bank than the others?

I could give a rats *** about the effect on EPO on one vs the other. Being ****ed about that is so misplaced and childish I will respond no further on that. Besides, is it just EPO or some extravagant voodoo cocktail Ferrari cooked up that nobody else can afford or are aware of lol? You guys are losing me here with this inconsistency.

I heard the Thrift drug story from his former teammates who were screwed. You can read an interview with the Cofidis management in "From Lance to Landis"

I can see why you do not "give a rats *** about the effect on EPO on one vs the other" as it completely kills your "Level playing field" myth.

You are projecting hatred where there is none. As I have said it is not Armstrong's doping that I dislike.

 

[Race Radio]

I started the major thread discussing AC's VO2 max because I was surprised there was such little comment on it. Considering he won the tour de france and broke all power output records its extraordinary there is such little comment compared to Armstrong.



Why is it baiting to make a comment which Chris also makes and I have made before? It's clearly my judgment and I think its a correct judgment.

Even a *** can glance through this forum and see hundreds of posts calling out Contador. To pretend that this is not the case is trolling, baiting, or willful ignorance.

The big difference is there are few here that suspend rational thought and stand up for Contador. You would have a tough time finding anyone here who thinks he is clean.

 

[UnBanProCycling]

You have answered nothing. I provided you with with a study that showed a 3-18% difference in fit riders.

I coudn't find the bit in the study that said that, so I asked you to cite it for me. You could not. I'm not saying its not there, but it would be helpful if you can highlight it as requested. It's also a study of only eight people who are Sunday riders. It's not very conclusive.

I also pointed out that it's equally as likely that many other factors played apart in Armsrtong's success, such as the change in mental approach and the weight loss during the mid 90s, and the huge change in training. Your refusal to factor this in, or the fact that EPO amongst the top riders likely held back Armstrong during the early 90s, doesn't give me much faith that you are looking at this man's career on a rational basis.

 

[UnBanProCycling]

Even a *** can glance through this forum and see hundreds of posts calling out Contador. To pretend that this is not the case is trolling, baiting, or willful ignorance.

The big difference is there are few here that suspend rational thought and stand up for Contador. You would have a tough time finding anyone here who thinks he is clean.

There you go again with the name calling and the insults. We're talking about the winner of the tour de france, and the power output record holder. It is surprising that there isn't a higher level campaign against him. Yes there are comments here and there, but it's all a bit lackluster.

As someone myself who is not sure if Contador is clean or not, and doesn't like to see great riders smeared, in a way I am happy about this. But the hypocrisy of it is striking put next to the hatred and smears against Armstrong.

Now, your turn to call me a *** and a troll again.

 

[Race Radio]

Please provide links to the Cofidis deal,

http://books.google.com/books?id=V8...#v=onepage&q=armstrong cofidis salary&f=false

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I started the major thread discussing AC's VO2 max because I was surprised there was such little comment on it. Considering he won the tour de france and broke all power output records its extraordinary there is such little comment compared to Armstrong. .

Yes you started the thread on Contador - and the reason why it didn't run and run like the LA threads is because you were not butting in trying to defend him - again I think people either agreed that the VAM was suspicious or they felt it was death by science and suspended opinion.

The same has happened on the LA blood profile threads - and blood profiles are far more accurate than trying to work out someones wattages on a climb.

I agree that Contadors Verbier performance is suspicious - along with other circumstantial evidence against him - but that thread died because there was no-one disagreeing with it.

 

[ChrisE]

Great, another *** with zero knowledge of anything related to the subject has joined the discussion. This forum blows.

You not being able to cite your claims shouldn't make me a ***, but OK. We are on the same level now so maybe we can have an intelligent discussion. I will move on to an adult now.....

RR - This is the first time I have heard the cofidis issue from this POV. Admittedly, it is from Cofidis so who to believe? Also, I think it would have made more news if he would have stiffed them on the million. Sorry, I don't buy it. I do know he signed with USPS at $200k in 1998 and proceeded to nearly win the worlds and placed 4th in the Veulta.

Surely somebody in here has broken down VAM increase vs personal wealth. Let's quantify things a little bit instead of hypothesis. It's like the "cut taxes = increased revenue" whackjobs. When I ask one of these kooks why 0 taxes doesn't cause infinite revenue for the govt. you can see the springs popping in their head lol.

House, if you are UBPC then care to enlighten me on this off topic subject?

Level playing field = everybody has the ability to dope. Agreed the wealthier have more opportunity but diminishing returns starts at some point. If rider A reacts better than rider B on the same system then it sux to be rider B. I don't take that into account when directing venom. YMMV.

 

[UnBanProCycling]

In my judgment breaking all power record outputs in the ToF is more damning than a slightly dodgy blood profile (that might not even be as dodgy as some think). It suggests he didn't just tamper at the edges but was using something new that put him completely off the charts. One would think there would be demands to have this new young face of cycling - the top rider in the world - banned on this basis. The internet scientists would be creating new tests to stop power output cheats and all the rest of it. But no....

 

[ChrisE]

http://books.google.com/books?id=V8...#v=onepage&q=armstrong cofidis salary&f=false

Sorry, $600k is less than 25% of 2.5 million. ***** upthread said 75% was paid.

 

[elapid]

I also pointed out that it's equally as likely that many other factors played apart in Armsrtong's success, such as the change in mental approach and the weight loss during the mid 90s, and the huge change in training. Your refusal to factor this in, or the fact that EPO amongst the top riders likely held back Armstrong during the early 90s, doesn't give me much faith that you are looking at this man's career on a rational basis.

Before I put your new name on my ignore, UBPC you continue with this inane argument. Armstrong was no different mentally when a youngish rider on Motorola, leading US Postal/Discovery during his TdF reign, or during his more recent comeback. He is/was determined, focused, single-minded, brash and arrogant. The only thing he added more recently was a regression into immaturity.

He never lost weight in the mid-1990s or during his cancer treatment. Please provide proof of this weight loss. According to Coyle's paper on Lance, which is used as the poster-child for all the Lance lovers, Lance weighed slightly more post-cancer than he did in 1992 and 1993 (as shown in Table 2 from Coyle's paper):

So again, please show me the evidence that Lance lost weight.

 

[ChrisE]

In my judgment breaking all power record outputs in the ToF is more damning than a slightly dodgy blood profile (that might not even be as dodgy as some think). It suggests he didn't just tamper at the edges but was using something new that put him completely off the charts. One would think there would be demands to have this new young face of cycling - the top rider in the world - banned on this basis. The internet scientists would be creating new tests to stop power output cheats and all the rest of it. But no....

+1.

Am I supposed to go shower now when I agree with you?

 

[BroDeal]

Level playing field = everybody has the ability to dope. Agreed the wealthier have more opportunity but diminishing returns starts at some point. If rider A reacts better than rider B on the same system then it sux to be rider B. I don't take that into account when directing venom. YMMV.

Armstrong paid $500K under the table to the UCI during one year. That is more money than Hamilton spent on dope and doping advice during his entire career. Looking at the money that Ullrich and Basso were paying Dr. Fuentes, it is likely that $500K is more than both of them spent on doping their entire careers. Armstrong is in a whole different league when it comes to money paid to doctors. There is just no comparison.

 

[UnBanProCycling]

Before I put your new name on my ignore, UBPC you continue with this inane argument. Armstrong was no different mentally when a youngish rider on Motorola, leading US Postal/Discovery during his TdF reign, or during his more recent comeback. He is/was determined, focused, single-minded, brash and arrogant. The only thing he added more recently was a regression into immaturity.

He never lost weight in the mid-1990s or during his cancer treatment. Please provide proof of this weight loss. According to Coyle's paper on Lance, which is used as the poster-child for all the Lance lovers, Lance weighed slightly more post-cancer than he did in 1992 and 1993 (as shown in Table 2 from Coyle's paper):

So again, please show me the evidence that Lance lost weight.

Thanks.

Firstly I think Armstrong was more immature than a lot of other young riders from what I've seen. It's a judgment of course - there no way to record this - but it seems credible to me that the cancer experience would have a greater effect on his mental approach than other riders. And I think you cannot underestimate this aspect of the change. As I said on another thread, the mind has a direct effect on the physiology - it's extremely important. It's what makes great athletes in my view.

Secondly, there is evidence from Frankie Andreu that LA bulked up in the mid 90s. He said he was looking like a line backer (some American football thing). This clearly suggests he changed training and put on weight. When that weight came off, the new training and mental approach kicked in.

In the early 1990s I suspect that the EPO generation of top riders was something that held him back from shining as quickly as he could have done. He probably used EPO himself at some point in the mid 1990s, and with the other factors, this allowed him to compete on a level playing field.

It really is quite a common sense story if you think about it.

 

[ChrisE]

Armstrong paid $500K under the table to the UCI during one year. That is more money than Hamilton spent on dope and doping advice during his entire career. Looking at the money that Ullrich and Basso were paying Dr. Fuentes, it is likely that $500K is more than both of them spent on doping their entire careers. Armstrong is in a whole different league when it comes to money paid to doctors. There is just no comparison.

You know, I am beginning to think I am *** per bikecentric upthread. I remember $50k and it was documented. Am I this much out of the loop?

Flock of bros, is it too much to ask for a link? Thanks.

You also must be the one with the wealth vs VAM increase chart. Can you post that please? I assume there is also a wealth of info around of Ferrari's income from LA vs Fuentes or any of the Telekom docs. Thanks.

Finally, please don't make me think of chimera again. I am just now getting over the heartwrenching scene of him crying on Euro tv over his dog.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sylvia Schenk who was a member of the UCI Management Committee said:

" For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000"...

From this CyclingNews article Sept 2005.

 

[Race Radio]

I coudn't find the bit in the study that said that, so I asked you to cite it for me. You could not. I'm not saying its not there, but it would be helpful if you can highlight it as requested. It's also a study of only eight people who are Sunday riders. It's not very conclusive.

I also pointed out that it's equally as likely that many other factors played apart in Armsrtong's success, such as the change in mental approach and the weight loss during the mid 90s, and the huge change in training. Your refusal to factor this in, or the fact that EPO amongst the top riders likely held back Armstrong during the early 90s, doesn't give me much faith that you are looking at this man's career on a rational basis.

They were not "Sunday riders" They were "endurance-trained athletes"

You can read both studies here.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/bny7bu1p3b4y8nc7/
and here
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7767vrr736073k3/

Here is a link to the Sildenafil study. Notice the part that says

Responders versus non-responders
Four of the 10 participants responded to sildenafil while the remaining six did not, Friedlander said. The responders showed the greatest drops in stroke volume, cardiac output, and cycling performance between the sea level and high altitude trials without the drug

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-06/aps-vih061906.php

You make wild claims here daily, that you never back up. You have made claims about how Armstrong's training plans resulted in his dramatic improvement. Do you have any evidence to support this that is not from one of his books?

 

[BroDeal]

Secondly, there is evidence from Frankie Andreu that LA bulked up in the mid 90s. He said he was looking like a line backer (some American football thing). This clearly suggests he changed training and put on weight. When that weight came off, the new training and mental approach kicked in.

In the early 1990s I suspect that the EPO generation of top riders was something that held him back from shining as quickly as he could have done. He probably used EPO himself at some point in the mid 1990s, and with the other factors, this allowed him to compete on a level playing field.

It really is quite a common sense story if you think about it.

Unless you actually take the facts into account. Armstrong lost no weight. He raced in the early 90s at the same weight he did at the end of his career. We know he used EPO in 1999, so coming up with pretzel logic that does not involve doping to explain his unnatural performance gains is ridiculous.

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry, $600k is less than 25% of 2.5 million. A$$clown upthread said 75% was paid.

A$$clown, the $2.5 was for two years. Armstrong was with Cofidis for less then a year. Armstrong said he was paid nothing.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Sylvia Schenk who was a member of the UCI Management Committee said:

" For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000"...

From this CyclingNews article Sept 2005.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16226502/Lance-Armstrong-Doping-History
This article quotes Armstrong as saying the "donation" was "six figures". It is on page 22, but the rest makes pretty good reading too.

 

[BikeCentric]

You not being able to cite your claims shouldn't make me a ***, but OK. We are on the same level now so maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.

I didn't make any claims ***; I did refer you to a piece of source material for another's claims: Armstrong's own book.

 

[Race Radio]

Thanks.

Firstly I think Armstrong was more immature than a lot of other young riders from what I've seen.

Secondly, there is evidence from Frankie Andreu that LA bulked up in the mid 90s. He said he was looking like a line backer (some American football thing). This clearly suggests he changed training and put on weight. When that weight came off, the new training and mental approach kicked in.

Which is it? Is Armstrong the rider who was way ahead of his time, winning Pro Triathlons and World Championships....or the immature loser.

Frankie talks about Lance showing up for training camp with lots of muscle because he was DOPING! Frankie did not suspect some new training plan but saw that Dr.Ferrari had him doping in the off season.

 

[Izoard]

+1.

Am I supposed to go shower now when I agree with you?

LMAO!! I guess the short answer is ... YES!

 

[UnBanProCycling]

They were not "Sunday riders" They were "endurance-trained athletes"

You can read both studies here.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/bny7bu1p3b4y8nc7/
and here
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7767vrr736073k3/

Here is a link to the Sildenafil study. Notice the part that says

Responders versus non-responders
Four of the 10 participants responded to sildenafil while the remaining six did not, Friedlander said. The responders showed the greatest drops in stroke volume, cardiac output, and cycling performance between the sea level and high altitude trials without the drug

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-06/aps-vih061906.php

You make wild claims here daily, that you never back up. You have made claims about how Armstrong's training plans resulted in his dramatic improvement. Do you have any evidence to support this that is not from one of his books?

This is a different link to the link you gave before. Perhaps this is a different study? The other one said the cyclists were "reasonbly fit" and were Sunday riders. Or is endurance trained just the scientific way of saying the same thing?

Anyway it also only refers to one type of drug. Thanks for sharing it but I don't think this is conclusive to your claim, as I said.

Yes you're right that I can only go from people in the sport and commentators in regards to Armstrong's training. They say his model of periodization training and preperation transformed the way riders prepare for grand tours, and is not the model for everybody. It could all be one big lie but I doubt it. I think more would have been said against it if it was.